According to Mark Landler in the May 28 New York Times, it was Obama himself who reportedly boiled down his foreign policy to “a saltier variation of the phrase, ‘don’t do stupid stuff’ — brushing aside as reckless those who say the United States should consider enforcing a no-fly zone in Syria or supplying arms to Ukrainian troops.”

As it happens, Hillary used the Goldberg interview to make it clear she supported more aggressive actions against the Syrian regime but was shot down — and clearly intimated she’d support more aggressive efforts to support Ukraine against Russia’s depradations than Obama is willing to do.

She also took pains to separate herself from the administration’s disdainful treatment of Israel’s conduct of the war against Hamas.

She refused to take Goldberg’s bait and say Israel had acted recklessly or irresponsibly.

“I think Israel did what it had to do to respond to the rockets,” she said. “And there is the surprising number and complexity of the tunnels, and Hamas has consistently, not just in this conflict, but in the past, been less than protective of their civilians.”

Rather than tasking Israel with the responsibility to “do more” to protect the civilians beneath whose feet Hamas was hiding its missiles and tunnels, she said, “I don’t know a nation, no matter what its values are — and I think that democratic nations have demonstrably better values in a conflict position — that hasn’t made errors.”

Some read this as Hillary’s re-emergence as a hawk, but I think it makes more sense to read it as part and parcel of her new determination to serve as an outside critic of the Obama administration’s approach — a critic more in sorrow than in anger, a seemingly friendly critic, who’s neither a Republican pol nor a neocon pundit.

Last year, when it looked like Obama might maintain his popularity, Hillary was ready to run as his confidant, adviser and friend.

Now, as the world comes crashing down upon him, along with his poll numbers and the increasingly disastrous prospects for his party in the November midterms, Mrs. Clinton has laid a bet.

She is betting she has two years to set herself up not as Obama’s natural successor but as his sadder-but-wiser replacement — the one who saw it go wrong, the one who watched as the mistakes were being made, the one who sought to mitigate or reverse those blunders to no effect, the one best able to take inspiration from a more successful, more centrist Democratic presidency.

Mrs. Clinton’s political judgment is not to be trusted. She allowed Obama to eat her lunch in 2008 in part because she was overconfident and tacked too far to the center too early. She may well be doing it again.

But she has made her choice. If Obama stumbles, she’ll be there — with her ankle turned out, to trip him up still further and then, with a sad smile, claim credit for having known that the obstacle had been there in his path all along.

Hillary called Obama yesterday to assure him nothing in the interview was meant to be critical of him. Well said, Iago.